dungeonsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Vaerya (3.5e Campaign Setting)
Categories and such Hey, dunno how to remove the Category CS completion 4 from the page... little help there would be nice. I can't seem to find it. Gold-Dragon 12:02, November 3, 2009 (UTC) :also, I don't know how to get this to show up on the 3.5e campaign setting list. Gold-Dragon 12:11, November 3, 2009 (UTC) ::The Campaign Setting or whatever template on it that gave it that category, but since neither the template or the category are used here I just removed it (and thus the category). It'll show up in the campaign setting list on it's own in a day or 2 since it's in the right categories already. There's a minor issue with auto-updating lists that will delay it; if it still isn't in in 48 hours leave a message on my talk page and I'll walk over and kick it for you (so it gets on there). - TarkisFlux 16:40, November 3, 2009 (UTC) :::And it looks like we're using that template again for big projects. Wheee. - TarkisFlux 00:53, November 6, 2009 (UTC) Reminder to Self This is just a reminder to myself to reorganize this a bit -- the various (Vaerya Campaign Setting) pages should really be a subpage of this, and re-name the title for 3.5e, and run the sanitizer...anyway, I'll get to all that later tonight. Surgo 17:35, November 3, 2009 (UTC) Confusion about formatting I moved all the pages in my campaign setting and deleted the redirects in order to make it look like every other CS on the site, and the pages all got moved back by TarsisFlux. I don't understand why. In the other formatting, the title of the page comes first, followed by (Vaerya Supplement), whereas in the current format, the page title is an afterthought stuck on the end of the name of the whole setting. It seems more comprehensive to list the title of the page first, followed by the setting name, and that is how the other campaign settings are done. What am I missing? Gold-Dragon 00:19, November 6, 2009 (UTC) :I didn't move anything, I just put them in the Category:Vaerya Setting so they were all tied to a common group like the other campaign settings have their own group just for their pages. That was all. No renaming or moving or redirects affected - TarkisFlux 00:27, November 6, 2009 (UTC) ::Ah, yes. Surgo did it, my bad. still, my question remains. Gold-Dragon 00:32, November 6, 2009 (UTC) :::My computer is toast at the moment, and will be for a few days. I'll happily answer the question in detail when I get back. (this is Surgo). ::::Yeah, all the moving back and forth was funny. I think Surgo has a general CS reorganization planned such that every page is a subpage of the main entry and this just happened to be the first one in the stack (or the most obvious), and his note to self supports that interpretation, but I'm honestly not sure what the deal is. Glad that my name was just put up there as a misunderstanding though, I was quite confused. - TarkisFlux 00:53, November 6, 2009 (UTC) :::::I should note that setting them up as subpages instead of their own pages puts up built-in automagical breadcrumbs at the tops of the page to get back to the higher level pages and might be a good way to go for that reason alone. But I guess we'll see what the deal is in a couple of days. - TarkisFlux 00:57, November 6, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, I do like that magic breadcrumb, and I really don't mind the new format. I just liked having the name of the page first. if this is the way we're doing it, that's fine by me I guess. I just didn't get why mine was getting special treatment. Consider my query resolved. Gold-Dragon 16:04, November 6, 2009 (UTC) :::::::I'll be editing every campaign setting to look like that. However note that the sub-pages are only required for, say, the campaign-setting specific stuff; the stuff that you think can be used by anyone, not just the guys using your campaign setting (like feats, races, etc.) should go under "MyFeat (3.5e Feat)" and just link back to the campaign setting like normal. Let me know if I'm not doing a good job communicating; I feel like I might not be making this very clear. Surgo 16:31, November 6, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I get it. Sounds good to me. Thanks for clearing that up. Gold-Dragon 17:05, November 6, 2009 (UTC)